If no WWII, does FDR run in '40?

I've seen different analyses, but I'd like to throw this question to the Board. He could probably still be re-elected, but how would his health be affected without the stress of running America's biggest war?
 
FDR could easily decide to run. He reason he broke the two term tradition was because he believed the country still needed him. Without the war, the Depression and the need for recovery will still exist, and hence that mentality remains.

Lifespans are fickle so it's anyone's guess.
 
Actually I think FDR probably could not have won a third term if not for World War 2. I remember that there was some polling by Gallup showing that FDR would lose in 1940 if the war had ended before the November Election Date.

His Health would probably still decline, but not as rapidly. By 1944, he was in pretty bad shape in OTL. In this ATL, he still would have stress of dealing with the recovery from the Depression (not as swift as in our timeline as there is no increased industrial production due to military orders here and overseas)
 
Who would the GOP candidate be? If Dewey beats Lehman in '38, he could easily try a Reagan, though FDR could throw the experience and age cards at him like a frag grenade...
 
Actually I think FDR probably could not have won a third term if not for World War 2. I remember that there was some polling by Gallup showing that FDR would lose in 1940 if the war had ended before the November Election Date.

Source?

filler
 
Actually I think FDR probably could not have won a third term if not for World War 2. I remember that there was some polling by Gallup showing that FDR would lose in 1940 if the war had ended before the November Election Date.

His Health would probably still decline, but not as rapidly. By 1944, he was in pretty bad shape in OTL. In this ATL, he still would have stress of dealing with the recovery from the Depression (not as swift as in our timeline as there is no increased industrial production due to military orders here and overseas)
I don't think the GOP can win in 1940. They have the blame for the Depression on their shoulders in the public mind, were still influenced by the Conservatives who were against the New Deal and generally any such reform efforts along similar lines which doesn't play well with the middle/working class (albeit I think Wilkie said he'd have kept most of the New Deal, but just make it more efficient; a common Liberal Republican complaint was not Social Liberalism in economy, but that they could handle it without producing the same waste) and the GOP is the party which represented big business which the public still blamed for causing the Depression. FDR has an economy which is improving, and he had an approval rating around 50% or so around the election.
As the US was isolationist when the original timeline scenario played out, I don't wee too much initial deviation policy issue-wise (the economic recovery of producing for Europe's conflict pre-1941 would be an issue, but recovery had existed already in domestic rather militaristic production and work, so I don't think it'll be horribly different), so I'm not sure I see too much deviation in 1940.
The thing that could derail FDR would be the breaking of the two term rule.
 
The 1937 recession/Depression would still have the country in its grasps and people might be less inclined to vote for him. I don't think the Republican would win but we might see a different Democrat on the ticket, and there is the highly unlikely possibility that we see a figure rise to power that vows to make America great again and unites the American people against a percived enemy.
 
The '37 recession was caused by Roosevelt reversing policy, curtailing New Deal programs, and attempting to balance the deficit. Recovery returned when Roosevelt went back to his previous course, which took place pre-1940 election anyway, although the recession obviously retarded progress and could leave a scar. A candidate like Dewey or even Wilkie could have taken advantage of that and tried to (to reiterate, Liberal Republicans did not oppose the concept of a New Deal per se, but thought FDR had run it wastefully and they could do the same sorta thing better), but I frankly don't think 1940 would be too deviated from how it actually was because the US was isolationist as it was, and labor could simply just continue to be expanded domestically rather than a new sector to give military aid to Britain and so forth. I see, in my opinion, the real deviations picking up once you get beyond December 7, 1941.

However, without World War 2, I concede FDR may step down (although I see that in no way as definite either), thus opening up an obviously different election in 1940.
 
Last edited:

Wolfpaw

Banned
IIRC, the main reason Roosevelt ran in 1940 was because of WWII. He believed (rightly) believed that the nation needed to keep building up its military, something that the Republicans and a good many Democrats were against.

If he steps down in 1940, I see him living until around 1949, maybe. The Democrats, meanwhile, will probably be scrambling to find someone to run against the Republicans, since an annointed Roosevelt heir probably wouldn't be acceptable to the whole party (since, at the end of the day, the fellow still wouldn't be FDR).

Divided Democrats + the Republicans not picking somebody serious like Bob Taft (I think Dewey was a little too young/inexperienced/unknownish/would have some trouble outside the East Coast) instead of that borderline ASB Willkie would have the Republicans win.

An interesting scenario could be if war breaks out in 1938 and is ended by a German coup ousting Hitler. If FDR tries to get the USA involved (and fails or is successful, even) it will lose the Dems a lot of support, especially considering as how there's no Nazi juggernaut to scare the hell out of the free world. Also, no Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor will let isolationism remain popular.
 
Taft was only elected in '38 IIRC, so it appears that no '40 GOP candidate had served a full term in any major elected office. Surprised that FDR didn't play the experience card, running against a "civilian" IOTL.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Yeah, but Taft was more appealing to a lot of voters in '40 despite his non-interventionist policies.

Willkie was only chosen because the Taftite and Deweyite factions couldn't stand each other. If there's no war in 1940, Taft is going to be waaay more attractive to the Republicans; his main conflict with Dewey's folks was (beside bickering over the New Deal) his staunch non-interventionsim. Again, no war = people being a lot more okay with isolationism.

Not to mention the fact that a Taft run could be seen as a sort of "return to normalcy" or something along those lines, since the (domestic) New Deal was starting to wind down and the economy was beginning to get back on track.
 
Again, no war = people being a lot more okay with isolationism.

No war in 1940 and the candidates literally don't say a word about foreign policy.

The convention platforms will mention trade policy with Canada before thay talk about Yurp (though on the other current thread about an Isolationist America I mention that Henry Luce was an enthusiast for China, and he was one of Willkie's major backers, so the subject of aid for the KMT will come up if he--Willkie--is still the Republican nominee.)
 
My guess is you get James Farley as the Democratic nominee and probably Tom Dewey on the Republican side. That would likely be an extremely close election. Farley would be able to marshall most of the support of the New Deal coalition, but he would face some of the same problems Al Smith faced in 1928 over his Catholicism.
 
A Catholic could not be elected in '40 because a plurality of voters, according to Gallup, would rule it out under any circumstances. Particularly when Farley is a Democratic Karl Rove with Nixonian ethics. I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least two impeachment attempts on Farley. The South might even form a Dixiecrat party a generation earlier due to the choice between a Catholic and the socially liberal heirs of Lincoln.
 
Guys

It makes quite a difference as to why there is no WWII. Have the Nazis been stomped quickly or suffered a military coup? If so then probably a lot less tension in Europe and military build-up. However could be simply a more intelligent Hitler hasn't pushed so far and so fast, or burnt out the economy so there is still a major arms race going on. Given the sheer military and demographic power of Europe at the time, plus the fact Britain and Japan would be in big naval programmes you would see the US building up as well, although how much would depend on the circumstances.

Similarly what would be the situation in the Far East. If you haven't butterflied militarism in Japan its probably still expanded into China and economic and military tension is strong there. Or possibly Stalin [not worried about fascism in Europe] has stomped Japan and there is concern about communist advances in China.

AS such the situation in foreign affairs will still matter, although it will be less prevelant than OTL.

Steve
 
A Catholic could not be elected in '40 because a plurality of voters, according to Gallup, would rule it out under any circumstances.

What were the Gallup polls saying in the late fifties about that subject, I wonder. You of all people must be familiar with Jack Kennedy's West Virginia litmus test.

RogueBeaver said:
I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least two impeachment attempts on Farley.

Two impeachment attempts? How did you arrive at that figure?

Anyway, any solitary fire eating congresscritter can say he wants to impeach the POTUS. That doesn't make it a serious attempt, particularly if there is a Democrat from Texas in the speaker's chair who has Farley's back.

RogueBeaver said:
The South might even form a Dixiecrat party a generation earlier due to the choice between a Catholic and the socially liberal heirs of Lincoln.

They did run a 3rd party presidential ticket only three years after FDR's death, yet that was mostly a result of Truman de-segregating the military. All the Roosevelt administration had done to upset the Dixiecrats' core issue was to offer lukwarm support for anti-lynching laws in the late thirties--hell, fair employment, Truman's other policy that rankled the Southrons, wasn't even on the radar during the 1940 election AFAIK, even though African Americans had received equal access to New Deal programmes. Southern discomfort with the New Deal is something, of course, but that's what the anti-New Deal coalition in the senate was for.

There never was a breakaway anti-New Deal Dixiecrat Party. In fact, the one attempt to create one in Texas for the presidential election of 1944 was an abject failure. (Now, a Republican breaking into the Upper South in an AH race against Farley is an interesting prospect, considering Harding and Hoover did well in the twenties in that region. But Farley has the TVA to wield against, say, the renowned anti-TVA Wendell Willkie. What does that leave the GOP? Arkansas?)

Anyway, Al Smith carried all the 'black belt' states in 1928.

I don't see why Farley can't run a competitive race throughout the Union states against a GOP Old Guard nominee while keeping the South Democratic (albeit by smaller margins than FDR). Against a Willkie or a Dewey in the non-South is a different matter, though.

RogueBeaver said:
Particularly when Farley is a Democratic Karl Rove with Nixonian ethics

Well, the collective batting average for Rove and Dick in presidential elections is 3 for 2. I like those odds, as Homer Simpson would say.:D
 
An interesting question. Without World War II, with its economic stimulus and, more importantly, the welcome distraction it proved from New Deal boondoggles, the Depression might have lasted into the 1940s. Could the Republicans have nominated someone who could finally make the case that the New Deal was a failure and that something else had to be tried? I'm doubtful. But 1944 would have certainly be a decisive year. One doubts that FDR would have run for a 4th term, as ill as he was and absent a war. That would have set up a contest between--say--Henry Wallace and Robert Taft?
 
Mark: What worked in OTL was the service economy, as you probably know. People went to McDonalds instead of going out for a picnic. There was also more ubiquitous 'planned obsoleteness' in the industry, but mostly it was services.

So, how do we get the expansion of the service sector without a war? An even more expanded new deal? As long as the economy is perceived to be on life support, people aren't going to 'waste' money on services they don't need.

There probably is a way, but I can't see it.
 
Given the depth of the New Deal coalition, I think Farley could have won. Anyway, if Farley isn't the nominee, then the other likely candidate was Cordell Hull (who did get Roosevelt's public support before he wound up committing to running himself).
 
Top